Hillary Clinton has a very tricky needle to thread

[cali]

She has to motivate large numbers of minorities and appeal to a significant number of working class white voters. The latter will be particularly difficult to do. This ain't 2008.

I think Clinton has a fair number of other obstacles that get glossed over by the MSM. She's not a very adept campaigner. She comes off simultaneously as scripted and prone to making comments that are ripe for exploitation. The roll out of her recent book was an example of this. I suspect her support is not as robust as it now appears.

She certainly has a titanic machine and a lot of big money behind her. But that's both good news and bad news. How do you take on Wall Street- and it will be an issue, when you are so closely tied to it? And a political machine can be hidebound- as we saw in 2008.

At the moment, the American electorate seems to be in a fairly reactionary state. Will that extend into 2016? I believe so. And what about "Clinton fatigue"? It exists, but will it factor in significantly?

Clinton trounces all other dems, but she's close to even with Jeb Bush, Christy and Romney. Should the republicans nominate Cruz or Paul, she'll win, but I don't see that happening. Republicans don't nominate their firebrands and the party mechanisms and those who control those mechanisms won't support Cruz or Paul.

[CrispyQ]

1. I'll take crap for this, but I think a good share of America wants a white man back in charge.

I don't think a Clinton win is a given.

[cali]

2. I agree. That's part of what I meant by a reactionary electorate

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Romney , imho, only polls well because of buyers remorse

Voters are wrongly, imho, dissatisfied with their 012 presidential vote and are telling pollsters they will vote for Romney as a way of displaying their dissatisfaction.

Bush is for real but if it becomes a referendum on the Bush years versus the Clinton years my money is is on the proposition that a plurality or majority of folks rather return to the Clinton years. I know going back is impossible but that's how the election will be framed.

[cali]

6. possibly, but that doesn't mean that that itself couldn't be something that worked in his favor

if he ran.

[NYC_SKP]

4. She is a turnoff to the younger 50% of voters.

And a large swath of the remainder.

[polichick]

40. True - could mean a very low turnout if she's the nominee.

[Scuba]

5. She loves war, and war criminals. Those are disqualifiers for me.

[MineralMan]

7. In truth, so does every candidate for President.

There's nothing new in the challenges she will face. They're the same challenges every candidate faces. Much will depend on the support she gets from rank and file Democrats. Less will depend on what others do.

Running for President is a national race, and this nation is hard to predict, other than to say that every race for President ends up being a fairly close one. Whoever ends up with the nomination is going to need the support of every part of the Democratic Party and every voting Democrat. Anything less, and we lose. We all lose.

[cali]

9. I disagree. I think she has some unique challenges

and personally, though she's not as bad as the republicans, electing her will be a loss for the nation- just not as big a loss.

[MineralMan]

13. I know you disagree. You tell us so frequently.

If you want an alternative to Hillary, the place to work isn't here on DU. It's out on the primary campaign trail. DU will not influence the nomination of a Democratic candidate very much at all. If you truly want a different candidate, time's a'wasting.

[Rex]

14. True but since most of us vote, cali can sway people on DU so no this is a good place

to have these kind of debates.

[MineralMan]

19. Most DUers will vote for the Democratic nominee.

Most DUers vote in every election. I'm not really concerned about whether DUers will vote. I'm concerned about people who are in the low-information category. I'll be working in my own precinct, as always, as 2016 approaches to get out the vote. That's what I do.

On DU, I talk about broader topics and encourage others to GOTV. It is what people do in their own areas to get voters to the polls that will make the difference, not the discussions on DU.

[Rex]

24. I'm not concerned at all, just pointing out that people can be swayed to vote

for a different candidate in the primary. Even here on the DU. So yes this is a great place to talk about the candidates and their pros and cons.

[MineralMan]

28. That's certainly true. As I have said a number of times, if Bernie Sanders or

Elizabeth Warren are on my primary ballot in Minnesota, one of them will get my vote. I'll also caucus for whichever one I decide has a better chance, assuming they run at all. Then, in November of 2016, I will vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. I will also be out encouraging everyone else to do the same.

So far, there are no candidates to support or not support. Starting early next year, they will begin announcing. We shall see what happens.

[Rex]

31. True, I don't know if we will even have another viable candidate.

Warren says no to running but leaves the conversation open to discussion. Bernie would have to change party affiliation and I don't know if he is going to or not. So that leaves Hillary, who we all think is going to run.

One thing about being a yellow dog is you vote for the primary candidate. Until then, you fight like hell for the person you want to see be the primary winner.

[MineralMan]

33. I see 2016 as yet another transitional election.

I long for that transitional phase to be over, though. Until we are able to elect a President and Congress of the same party, we will be unable to make any significant progress on very important issues in this country.

Presidents have limited powers. Congress has limited powers. A standstill is often the result. We've been at the same standstill stage for far too long, but I don't see a sudden switch to a progressive President and Congress in the offing for 2016. I've been following electoral politics since the 1960s, and I'm not seeing any way to take any sudden turns right now.

Frankly, in 2016, the very best I hope for is a Democratic President and Democratic control of at least one house of Congress. If we can manage to gain control of both houses, then I could maybe see the end of this transitional phase coming. Right now, it's ugly as dog crap out there, politically.

We just lost control of the Senate, for pete's sake. Now, we have a Republican Congress. No progress is forseen, as far as I can tell. We have another chance in 2016. But we're still in transition. The GOP could be in its fading days, but you'd never know it from the 2014 election results.

I'd settle for a Democratic Congress and President in 2016. Any Democrats will do to attain that. With that, we can enact some actual legislation that actually moves things forward. With movement forward, we can expect a better response from voters. Right now, the political stage is boring and static. Not much reason for sluggish voters to show up. There's nothing going on.

We need to gain control by the Democratic Party so something can actually be done that's of interest to the population. Right now, I'm expecting two more years of stolid, non-functional government on the national level. Not very encouraging. I'm tired and sick of Democrats defeating themselves. It's boring.

[cali]

22. are you confused, MM? do you realize

that one can do both?

I find your hypocrisy somewhat startling. YOU post here about all sorts of thing, Min. You make arguments for what you believe but consistently board nannie it. You really should get the prize for such behavior here at DU.

You aren't shy about your opinions but you feel compelled to chide people for expressing theirs; telling them they shouldn't be posting but should be doing this or that. Interesting.

[MineralMan]

27. I'm not telling you what to post or not post, Cali.

You're mistaken. I'm in your thread, replying to you. I'm talking to you. If I didn't want to see your posts, I have a method for that right at hand. I think you should post whatever pleases you to post. I may reply in your threads, but that's all. I can't tell anyone what to post or not post. I can voice my own opinion, though, and I will continue to do so.

[wyldwolf]

36. See, you were very well reasoned until THAT comment

Then you let your obvious bias show.

http://www1.macys.com/shop/luggage?id=16908

[Bagsgroove]

12. Agree

Barack Obama won two elections not because he convinced a lot of right-wingers to vote for him, but because he was exciting enough to the core Democratic base for them to turn out. I don't think Hillary has that same excitement factor. A lot of people will be "for" her --and tell pollsters they are for her -- but not jazzed up enough about it to get off their butts and go to the polls. I don't know...maybe being the first woman with a chance at the White House might generate that excitement?

The challenge for any candidate (of either party) is to remain "centrist" enough to appeal to independents and the moderate part of their own party, and at the same time be exciting to the base (left leaning or right leaning as the case may be).

[aspirant]

8. Clinton fatique

If were dozing off, how will we hear her progressive message?

[Thinkingabout]

10. Though it is not we have already handed Hillary a victory it is really Hillary's to lose

On the other hand it will be a long road for any candidate in with party to run, it is going to take big money, you bet it will. Warren spent $42m getting elected to senator and this was the cost without running nation wide with the primaries, convention and general election. But just using the $42m and multiply it times 50 states, it will be a lot. Did some of Warren's money come fro. Corporations, yes, will the candidates need funding from corporations, you bet they will. This puzzles me with some of our Democrats ranting and raving about Wall Street and corporations. Do I have enough money to donate to make up the difference in what Wall Street and corporations will donate, not a chance in hell. We can campaign smart or just call off the elections and give it all to Republicans, I choose to play it smart.

[cali]

17. reducing the damage and continuing threat of corporate influence and control

to silly snark about dems who "rant and rave about Wall Street", is absurd. If you don't understand that this is one of the biggest threats we face, you need to educate yourself. From Citizens United to redistricting which is bankrolled by some of the biggest corporations in this country, the entire electoral process, from state legislatures to the Presidency has been significantly co-opted.

It's not only about corporate money but its about corporate ties. Hillary has been a very, very good friend to corporations.

You can call it playing smart if you wish, but that's exceedingly short sighted. Since President Eisenhower warned of the threat, it's grown exponentially worse.

Our democracy is deeply crippled by it.

[Thinkingabout]

29. cali, what I am trying to call your attention is the 90% dors not have the funds to

Support a candidate for presidency. Even Warren said she has taken contributions from corporations, this is a fact, I do not need to educate myself to this. Corporations has lots of influence and even plant lots of lobbyists for their cause. Why don't I get as excited about continuously downing corporations is because working for a corporation gave me a nice salary for years and I receive a nice pension from them along with healthcare, dental and vision care. Perhaps your experience has been different but trust me I do not need to be educated about corporations.

[cali]

34. just because you benefited from a corporation, hardly makes the encroachment

on our political system by them, OK. As I said, it's not only about corporations and Wall Street, regarding Hillary, it's about her ties to corporations and Wall Street. Ties that Warren (not that I'm supporting Warren) doesn't have.

This isn't about personal experience. If it were, I should be a republican because I come from a certain demographic and have benefited financially from it.

[Thinkingabout]

35. so you are saying Warren got campaign money from corporations and she does not have ties

With them? No they give money to both sides just in case the winner remembers them later. What should be happening is raising hell at the lobbyist who are running at the Congressional members all of the time.

[cali]

37. absolutely. she does not have the history with corporations and Wall Street that Hillary does

in fact, she has an antagonistic relationship with Wall Street. Hillary has a history with them that is the opposite.

[Thinkingabout]

38. Okay, she admitted where she got money and she does have connections.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. I agree. If it comes down to a fight for the "middle" she's in trouble.

If it's Bush or Romney or some other "moderate" she'll have to rely on money more than issues. And, she'll have to run even more to the right. She has a lot of money, and monied interests on her side, but the Republicans will have more. If she moves to far to the right she'll lose the support of the activists and left wing of the party and public.

If it's "moderate" against "moderate" she can expect a low voter turnout because the best she will have to offer is "not as bad" and "more of the same".

And, there is the fear factor. The Republicans fear Hillary more than the Democrats and independents (the largest voting block) fear Romney or Bush. They will turn out because of that fear. The independents, mostly moderate, will flip a coin or decide that some change is needed.

Of course, there is a very good chance that the Republicans will run one of the crazies and scare the voters into voting against the Republicans if not for for Hillary and give her the election.

The people are weary of the way things are now. They want a change. The Republicans can run on "change"by just being Republicans. What can Hillary run on following a Democratic Centrist president as a Democratic Centrist herself? Change? From what to what?

[Bagsgroove]

23. Nice!

That's about the best brief summation I've seen of the challenges the Democrats face in 2016.

"Of course, there is a very good chance that the Republicans will run one of the crazies and scare the voters into voting against the Republicans if not for for Hillary and give her the election."

Yeah, we can pray for a Ted Cruz or someone similarly whacko to win the nomination, but somehow even though the GOP primaries have given some excitement to the Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum types early on, the moneyed establishment somehow always pulls it out in the end for a centrist.

Personally I think all good Democrats should immediately change parties and work hard to support Ted Cruz for President. Then after he's nominated we can all switch back

[Thinkingabout]

32. Good defense, huh

[Rex]

15. She is not a shoe in, much to the chargin of some here.

Her few militant followers here are so rude that I bet they have turned off a few people from voting for her. Of course they say they love her, but concern trolls would say the same thing imo.

[BootinUp]

16. Hillary's not stressin' nt

[cali]

18. How do you know?

[BootinUp]

20. Its a gift I have.

[hedda_foil]

21. Agreed. And that white working class vote she needs sure as hell aren't living in 2008.

They've been ensorcelled by the tea party, right wing talkers, and Fox so called news and abandoned by the PTB.

They aren't likely to be ready.for Hillary. But Warren's plain spoken financial populism might be just the ticket to attract a good number of them.

[cali]

26. Ensorcelled. One of my favorite words.

and perfectly used.

[NYC_SKP]

41. Indeed, Warren can and probably will ensorcell a great many of them.

She just needs to do what she already does so well:

Straight talk, from the heart, with passion and conviction and appealing to the pocketbook and security for middle America, the working classes, the regular people.

The data is out there and she can use that to show them how much their security and opportunity is slipping away.

And, if anything, her past affiliation with the Republican party will help her to ensorcell those not enamored with Ted Cruz's charm.

Ick, I know, Ewwww.

[Cleita]

25. All your concerns are why I won't support her through the

primaries. Personally, her friendship with Henry Kissinger makes me gag. He was the main force behind the coup in the country of my birth, Chile, that destroyed the oldest democracy in South America and caused decades of death and suffering for many Chileans.

[Savannahmann]

30. I'm going to disagree with you about one factor here.

Paul. I'm terrified of him. Right now, he's viewed as a relative unknown, a tea party guy to most of the people if they know his name. But his message scares me. Populist right down the line. Between the war fatigue which plays into his isolationist message, to fatigue with the war on drugs which plays into his decriminalization of marijuana. The guy has populist messages lined up around the block.

He gave a speech about privacy in Berkeley, and was probably the first Republican who was not booed off the stage. That makes him dangerous, especially if Hillary continues the all war all the time mantra that she's been pushing.

Then there is the economic problems faced by cities exemplified by Detroit. Rand gave speeches that were very well received about that.

Rand is not a gee if they nominate him we've won candidate. Rand is the most dangerous candidate that the Democratic party has ever considered facing. If he can get a good lead out of Iowa, a distinct possibility, then there is no stopping him. States that we consider bastions will be close enough to be considered in play, which means we'll have to shore up our base in California, where privacy and drugs will play an interesting role in the election.

The way to view elections is this. Thirty percent will vote Democrat, they always have, and always will. Thirty percent will vote Republican for the same reason. It's the other forty percent that vote one way generally, but can vote any. If Rand's message resonates with enough of them, we're doomed.

I know everyone here thinks Rand is merely a front man for the KKK. One of my favorite things to read is "no one I know would vote for Rand Paul." But the election is not conducted that way. It's more than your friends and family. We're talking about eighty million people who decide the election. Those are the ones we need to reach, and Rand is out in front right now on populist messages. If we don't start to embrace some of those, we're going to be viewed as the me too party, or the we'll say anything to get elected party. It's a toss up of which one would spell our doom more quickly.

Rand isn't a hail mary hope for our side. Rand is the worst possible outcome of the GOP primary. Because our only hope then is Rand self destructing, and we can't count on that happening, because it didn't in 2012 to our sorrow.

[TBF]

39. They talk about polls

and how Hillary is known by everyone. Which is true - she was first lady for 8 years and quite memorable. The question is whether people who remember actually like her.

[Proud Public Servant]

42. Here's where you're mistaken

"She has to motivate large numbers of minorities and appeal to a significant number of working class white voters."

Nope.

What she has to do is EITHER motivate large numbers of minorities OR appeal to a significant number of working class white voters OR split the difference. No need to do both. How do we know? Because we have the 2012 exit polls: Obama handily put Romney away while getting only 36% of the white working-class vote; I don't have historical data at hand, but I'd guess that's the worst any Democratic candidate has ever done with that demographic.

My guess is that she'll split the difference: lose some of the minority voters who turned out in record numbers for Obama, but pick up some of the white voters he lost. There's no needle to be threaded here; all there is is the need for a decent ground game. THAT is her real challenge.

[GeorgeGist]

43. NO.MORE.BOOMERS.

They blew it.